Unicorns and Rainbows – Part 2

The typical Progressive Liberal confuses me, and quite frankly, I think they are confused as well.  What they say and do are so contradictory to a rational line of thinking leaves me with multiple WTH moments.

This is the second installment of the series.

The more and more that I think about what a Progressive Liberal states and what they do is leading me to a thought that the Progressive Liberal is anti-person to the point that they will sacrifice people to achieve what they believe will be the ultimate Utopia on earth.  Let’s take the following examples.

During a speech on gun control, the most rabidly Progressive Liberal President that the United States has ever had stated, “If there’s a step we can take to save even one child, we should take that step.”  This same President praised the abortion provider Planned Parenthood.  One can smell the hypocrisy…

When the government of California was taken over by the Ecology wing of the Progressive Liberals, most if not all forward-thinking water management plans (reservoirs & dams) were cancelled stating ecological damage to certain critters.  As the population grew, the water infrastructure became less and less capable of supporting the populace and the farming industry.  California is now suffering a water shortage of epic proportions due to these shortcomings.  The Progressive Liberal solution is to cut back water consumption to both the population and to the farmers, especially the farmers.  What happens to the California economy if the farmers go broke, and the people if they starve?

The Progressive Liberal is, for the most part, rabidly anti-gun (there are a few exceptions).  No price is too great to pay to rid guns from the population.  If they have their way, no one but the government and criminals will have guns, and the law-abiding population will have no defense against the predators from either group.

“With guns, we are citizens.  Without guns, we are subjects.” – Anonymous

The Progressive Liberal always seem to promote and encourage other viewpoints, but when confronted with other opinions and facts, the reaction is almost always the same:  Deny and attack the confronter personally.  It’s almost comical if they weren’t so damned serious and seemingly unaware of their hypocrisy.

The Progressive Liberal also is promoting electric cars as an alternative to gasoline powered cars because they are more environmentally friendly.  Not so.  Energy must be created to charge the batteries, so the power is being generated for the vehicle is being moved from the tailpipe of the vehicle to the power plant.  The chemicals used in the batteries are very toxic, and cannot be fully recycled (let’s not go into the mining of the components, which is a toxic process in of itself).  The cars are relatively expensive, which lower income people simply cannot afford.  And finally, it is not very practical for people with large commutes to have a car that runs out of energy after 30-40 miles (think California multilane highways clogged with cars).

But the Progressive Liberal has answers for the above.  Solar and wind electric generation replacing coal-fired power plants.  More research (government funded, of course) to non-toxic alternatives to the battery and range situations.  Cars will become cheaper as time goes on (with government subsidies to the poor).

Alternative energy such as solar and wind are not reliable, and have their own problems.  Both take up huge amounts of land, and have their own negative impacts upon the environment, of which the Environmental wing of the Progressive Liberal is remarkably silent.

Government funding and subsidies come from the taxpayers, and quite frankly, I’m tired of paying taxes for boondoggles and the politically connected companies like Solyndra.  It’s also somewhat comical when various Progressive Liberals find out that THEY will be paying for these programs out of their paycheck.

All of the above have had or are having negative impacts upon people of this country.  Yet the Progressive Liberal is blissfully unaware of the hypocritical nature of their policies negative impacts, especially upon the people that they state that they to want to protect – the poor and disadvantaged.

More in Part 3 of “Unicorns and Rainbows.”

The Snow Is Falling – Is The Earth Is Still Warming?

As you may have noticed, the background of the blog has been changed to falling snowflakes.  The flags (or something else) will return after Christmas.  This change is in honor of the first snowfall here in Michigan, and the upcoming Global Warming Climate Change summit to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark.

And that summit is in definite trouble with the release of emails detailing the falsification of climate data findings.  Not only that, but some officials and experts are not following their own advice in efforts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.  From the comments section of Stop Flying:

Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles. He generated 100 tonnes of CO2 which he could have mitigated by giving J.P. Morgan around $1450 to make his travels carbon-neutral. Perhaps he did so on our behalf.

gorefireOf course, our favorite Preacher of Global Warming Climate Change, Al Gore, has finally seen the light and has cancelled his appearance at Copenhagen.  I do wonder, though, if his cancellation has more to do with the released emails than it has to reduce his carbon footprint emitted by his private jet…  But here’s what the summit is expected to contribute to Global Warming Climate Change (from Australia’s Herald Sun):

The Copenhagen summit next week will generate vast quantities of hot air. It will see 16,500 people coming in from 192 countries. That amounts to 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. Also, the organisers will lay 900 kilometres of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals will be served and visitors will drink 200,000 cups of coffee — at least that will be organic.

And let’s not forget the massive amounts of hot air that will be expelled by the attendees during the meetings…

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is also up in arms over the release of climate researcher’s emails, although not for the reason you might (or might not) think.  She’s upset over what she believes to be a criminal act, i.e., theft of the emails, not the information that man-made Global Warming Climate Change is fabricated nonsense.  (Of course, she never got upset when Governor Sarah Palin’s email account was hacked, but then, Gov. Palin is a Republican…)  And now with Cap & Trade legislation creeping its way through the Senate, she’s not upset that the basis of the legislation that she is to consider is falsified?  If not the emails, then what about the following statements from IPCC author and Climategate scientist, Kevin Trenberth?  (again from Australia’s Herald Sun):

…where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless…

Al Gore, please return your Nobel prize and Academy Award at your earliest convenience…

Obviously, the foreign media is much more on the ball than our own media.  But then, many of those countries have witnessed the crushing economic impact of climate-regulating legislation, of which the effects are nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

But we are still driven toward what seems to be economic suicide for that drop in the bucket that the climatologists and environmentalists insist that will save the world from the evil clutches of us human lemmings.  Yet it seems that the only way that these scientists say that we are to save our planet (and maybe ourselves) is to decease and desist from our modern technology.  Unfortunately, I do no think that many of them could do without their computers, cars, electrical appliances, TVs, clothes, and food (just to name a few) – which all depend upon the use and consumption of fossil fuels and/or methane-belching bovines.  Hell, I would like to see them do as well as the Professor on Gilligan’s Island in similar circumstances!

God save us from the moronic politicians and the “scientists” that grovel at their feet for funding.  The real problem is that we’re going to be the ones paying the bills – theirs and ours – to keep this nonsense going because our politicians do not have the common sense that God gave them, but have replaced it with a sense of elitism.  Perhaps if they were to perform their duties without pay as the original Congress did would they gain some sense of perspective of the people that they represent.  But then, I’m dreaming…

HR2454 Post Coverage

I was surfing through the news channels this morning and saw something that really states what the media considers important.  Hint:  It’s not our government.

Just about all the media outlets, including Fox News, were going on and on about the demise of Michael Jackson, and very little on last night’s narrow passage of HR2454.  For every 5 minutes spent on HR2454, there were at least 20 minutes spent on the troubled entertainer.

What also p****d me off was the revelation by the mainstream media that this bill, if passed by the Senate and signed by the President, would cost the average American household an additional $1500 per year in energy related costs.  They also stated that this is a tax paid by the energy companies, and that the costs would be passed on to the customer.


Where the h**l was the media in reporting this information before the vote?  If anything, these facts were totally ignored.  Perhaps they were afraid that the bill would be defeated in the House, but could be passed in the Senate without problems.

Bastards…  We’ll see about that…

Since this has slipped out before reaching the Senate floor, it now has a chance of being defeated providing the American people tell their Senators “enough is enough.”  I sure don’t have an extra $125 a month to spend, and this sure would kill the economy since that money would not be spent on manufactured goods.

Just remember, the media isn’t working for us any more than the politicians are.  If the love-fest with ABC earlier this week didn’t prove it to you, this should.

Cap & Trade Is A New Tax – Period!!

Update at the Bottom:

Here’s a quote you had better remember:

“…cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.” – Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)

Listening to the radio on the way to the store yesterday morning, I caught the tail-end of an interview with Representative Dingell.  It was brought up that if today’s vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (HR2454) was passed by the House & Senate and signed by the President, we could expect our fuel prices go up 77¢ a gallon, and our energy costs rise 30%.  This is all in a 1,200 page document that purports to “create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.”

Hang on to your wallets…

Just reading the summary has this language:

Requires the President to use statutory authorities to set motor vehicle emissions standards.

Safe Climate Act – Amends the CAA (Clean Air Act) to require the Administrator to promulgate regulations to: (1) cap and reduce GHG emissions, annually, so that GHG emissions from capped sources are reduced to 97% of 2005 levels by 2012, 83% by 2020, 58% by 2030, and 17% by 2050; and (2) establish a federal GHG registry.

Phases in prohibitions against covered entities (including electricity sources, fuel producers and importers, industrial gas producers and importers, geological sequestration sites, industrial stationary sources, industrial fossil fuel-fired combustion devices, natural gas local distribution companies, nitrogen trifluoride sources, algae-based fuels, and fugitive emissions) exceeding allowable emission levels. Requires covered entities to demonstrate compliance through: (1) holding emission allowances (including international emission or compensatory allowances) at least as great as attributable emissions (as specified); or (2) using offset credits. Sets forth penalties for noncompliance.

Provides for trading, banking and borrowing, auctioning, selling, exchanging, transferring, holding, or retiring emission allowances.

And so on.  But where are the taxes?  Well, you won’t pay them directly – the companies that you buy your gasoline, electricity, and others from will pay the taxes for you, but you will reimburse them.  Remember, companies and corporations do not pay taxes and penalties because they pass these costs on to the consumer of their products.  And that will be a big hit to consumers.  The Wall Street Journal states:

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

And the Orange County Register:

Most carbon emissions result from the use of hydrocarbon energy sources (mostly petroleum-based). Since 85 percent of U.S. energy comes from hydrocarbons, almost all use of energy would become more expensive due to the necessity to buy permission to emit a constantly declining amount of carbon dioxide every year. Thus the system would be a hidden tax on energy that would cost every American, including the middle class and lower-income people that President Barack Obama promised he would never tax.

What’s the real reason for this bill?  We are told that it would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that Americans emit to reduce the effect of Global Warming Climate Change.  The Orange County Register continues:

The kicker, of course, is that, assuming carbon dioxide emissions caused by human beings cause global warming – still more theory than fact – the highly respected Institute for Energy Research has estimated that the controls in this bill would reduce the global temperature by one-half of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Not very impressive.

Considering that China is building a coal-fired power plant every week, anything that we legislate and otherwise enact will be a drop in the bucket.  China and India refuse to cut their emissions because that would inhibit their economic growth.  Why are we so willing to cut our economic throats?  From Human Events.com:

Waxman-Markey is fundamentally anti-economic growth in nature. If you don’t yet grasp the significance of national economic growth, just look around at the recession we and the rest of the world are now enduring. Waxman-Markey would be a permanent clampdown on economic growth. The bill does this by making energy, the life blood of our economy, much more expensive and scarce.

Waxman-Markey will add $9 trillion in costs to the production of energy between 2012 and 2050 — that works out to almost $800 per American per year for the next 38 years. Those are just the direct costs imposed by the bill’s cap-and-trade regime. These costs will ripple throughout the American economy — everyone uses energy — making all goods and services more expensive.

Waxman-Markey necessarily supersizes government and increases its intrusiveness. In addition to expanded authorities and budgets for the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and other existing federal behemoths, the bill creates a whole new bureaucracy of government agencies and boards that will dictate who can use how much energy. There’s the Offsets Integrity Advisory Board, Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel, National Climate Service, and the Centers for Energy and Environmental Knowledge and Outreach to name a few.

Answer:  Bigger government.  More power to the politicians.  Money to the carbon traders.  All at the expense of the consumer.  And it won’t help the environment one damn bit.

However, the models also predict unambiguously that the atmosphere is warming faster than the surface of the earth; but all the available observational data unambiguously shows the opposite! – David Douglass, American Physicist

Global Warming Climate Change is based on a theory, one that is build on assumptions and horrendously complex computer models that cannot possibly predict all of the “what ifs.”  All we need to have is the sun belch out more than the average number of solar flares or a major volcanic eruption, and any model is absolutely rendered invalid.  Remember, Global Warming Climate Change is a consensus of scientific experts (who have a consensus of other scientific experts opposing the findings), which is absolutely opposite of the Scientific Method.  For those of you who slept through science class, the scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (theories).  And the results of the testing must be repeatable for the hypotheses to be valid (i.e., a scientific fact).

And the validity of consensus?

Indeed, scientific truth by consensus has had a uniformly bad history. – David Douglass, American Physicist

Now should we have fuel efficient cars and be able to conserve energy?  Yes, we should, but not by government mandate with power-hungry politicians at the helm, and certainly not by a fear that the Earth will melt due to a questionable theory as put forth by the media.  Those things will come in time, the question is when.


From the Wall Street Journal comes this article:

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

So now we have the scientific community making statements that the sky is not falling, and that the draconian measures proposed by the politicians are more destructive of the economies of countries than Global Warming Climate Change could ever be.

I only hope and pray that the politicians get some common sense soon…

The “N” Word…

President Obama stated in his speech yesterday:

… any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

While I fully understand the need for any nation to secure energy sources for its populace, the question begs to be asked –

Why does Iran, a country that has roughly the second-largest reserve of oil in the world, need nuclear power?  Surely it could use its own resources (and a few refineries) to fuel either natural gas or oil-fueled power plants to supply the energy it needs at a fraction of the cost (political and monetary) of a nuclear power-plant?

The answer is power.  Not power from the electrical side, but power to impose and project Iran’s goals and ambitions upon other countries in the region.  With the stated intention of Iran’s political and religious leaders to wipe Israel off the map, it’s not too much of a stretch that the nuclear power that Iran wants is the explosive kind, and not in the power transmission kind.

Iran’s leader have stated that this is their goal in their actions if not in their implicit speech.  While they may pay lip service to the Palestinian question, how are the Palestinian people going to return to “their land” if that land has been turned into a smoking radioactive crater?

It is because of these stated intentions and the barring of the UN’s nuclear inspectors that Iran has economic sanctions lodged against it…as if that has ever had any real effect upon that country…

President Obama is extremely naive if he thinks that a speech & re-establishing relations with Iran is going to change their direction.

Now a bigger question needs to be asked:

If President Obama is willing to give Iran a pass on developing nuclear power to meet the energy needs of Iran, then why doesn’t he give more support to creating nuclear power in the United States?  Considering that the United States imports most of its oil from semi-hostile countries and relies on CO2 producing coal-fired power stations, this should be a no-brainer.  But again, we are being paid lip service.

From CNN comes these statements attributed to then Presidential candidate Obama:

Obama said on December 30, 2007, at a town hall meeting in Newton, Iowa, that he isn’t a “nuclear energy proponent” and that “nuclear energy is not optimal.” But at the same event, he said he couldn’t rule out nuclear power if it is clean and safe. And on several occasions, Obama has expressed his support for pursuing safe ways to develop nuclear power.


The Obama-Biden Web site says that “nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

Newsweek also adds:

So does that mean Obama will become the nation’s cheerleader in chief for nuclear power? Not likely. Obama has been cautious whenever he’s been asked about the issue. In a “Meet the Press” appearance in May, he hedged when the subject came up. “I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we’ve got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they’re secure? Can we deal with the expense?”

Considering that France, Germany, and England have all safely operated nuclear power plants for years should state that nuclear power is safe, and that security of nuclear materials should not even be a question.  So what is the problem?  Don’t we have all those nasty CO2 generating coal-fired power plants to replace with a “green” alternative?  I’ll tell you right now that all the solar and wind farms currently in existence and planned will not meet the current, much less the future, energy demands of this country.  And President Obama is turning down the nuclear option in private if not in public.

Yucca Mountain in Nevada (home of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) has for the past 32 years been the best hope for nuclear waste.  Thirty-two years of endless red tape and changing requirements (often ridiculous in scope), but always moving toward certification as a storage facility.  And now, at the urging of Senator Reid and a campaign promise, President Obama has closed down the Yucca Mountain project, effectively dooming the nuclear power generation industry in this country.

And this is forward thinking?

The problem that many people (including me) is what to do with the undesirable nuclear waste.  The amount of that waste can be reduced if spent nuclear fuel rods are recycled.  However, that process for civilian facilities was banned by then President Jimmy Carter in 1977.  The alternative is to store spent fuel, without reprocessing, long term, which is what Yucca Mountain was supposed to do.  With the reprocessing of fuel rods banned, a long-term storage facility no longer available, a new government study now(?) underway to investigate the problem, and spent fuel rods being stored at limited temporary facilities at the power plants, the nuclear industry appears to be on its way out.

Which is what the environmentalists want to begin with.  But I digress…or do I?

The truth of the matter is that power generation of any form carries with it risks as well as rewards.  The risks are to people and the environment, and the reward is power to facilitate our day to day activities as a society and country.  There are ways to minimize the impact while reaping the rewards, just that some of them are impractical and horribly expensive.  Risks include CO2 generation, possible radioactivity, increased land usage for windfarms and solar arrays (which impacts wildlife and the local ecosystem), and economic ruin.  Implement any technology incorrectly, and these potential risks become reality.

And I hate to say it, I would worry more about nuclear reactor accidents in places like Iran and North Korea before the power plant down the street.  At least the one down the street won’t be making nuclear weapon material on the side.

Where do we go from here?  I will be writing a future post exploring a potential future of nuclear power that could be feasible.